Did anyone here about the 11 people injured, 2 killed eating outside of the Parthenon today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dad is over 80 and in great health, and no, I don’t think his license should be taken away just because he hit some chronological marker. BUT, health issues obviously take downturns more quickly the older you get, so I do think once you hit a certain age you should be required to decertify your license every year. I even agree with the PP who said younger people should every 5 or even 10 years. It’s kind of crazy that you can get a license at 16 and then never have to prove your ability to handle a 2000+ vehicle ever again.

So many things had to align for this to happen. There was no traffic coming south on a busy street which enabled him to cross several lanes of road. There just happened to be an open parking spot between two parked cars that he drove though. One day later and it would be snowing and no one would have been out there. Just so many random coincidences. The owner of the Parthenon knows the driver. Says he’s been coming to the lounge for 15 years and is a very nice guy. So many lives ruined.

This is a false statement. You are required to renew your license with an eye test every 10 (some places 5) years. What should be required is an eye test AND an actual driving test - of each and every person on the road. Anyone with children should want this - you are putting your family, or at least someone's child/ren in danger, each time and incompetent person is on the road.

It's not funny to me to hand a 95 year old blind woman a renewed license out of sympathy - not one bit.

Don't act like someone plowing in to building from a parked position is not a regular occurrence, because it is - and it is 99% elderly drivers doing this. It is perfectly preventable.

Not in any state in which I've lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The driver said, ‘I’m glad nobody died’ when he was on the scene.

Wow. That is telling. Did he even know where he was?

For PP is that pro "let them drive" - wait until your family is one of the victims. It is more common than you care to admit.

Your elderly parents privilege (it is not a right, though you seem to wish it so) to drive can and should be revoked when it is known their driving skills are impaired. By continuing this argument, you are acknowledging that you know that one or more of your parents should not be driving, yet you continue to allow them to do so.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Disgusting.

The reason I know this and that he said that, is I know someone that works there and was on the scene. He and 3 waiters pulled one person out of the wreckage, and when the 80 year said that to my friend, my friend said, ‘not yet’ as he knew a couple of them weren’t going to make it. He said it was like a war zone.

Why are people allowed to drive such dangerous vehicles? We should have safety standards for people outside of the car, not just inside.

We do. Curbs, drivers licenses, pedestrian right of ways, crosswalks, stoplights, school crossing rules, lanes for cars and sidewalks for pedestrians....

Pedestrian right of ways need to be taken way more seriously by the pedestrian. Just because you have the walk signal, keep looking so nobody flys right through you. I’m amazed how many pedestrians are so nonchalant crossing the street. No wonder so many get hit. They may have the right away, but one’s in a machine. Keep looking as you cross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

I don't see anyone here thinking that. But adult "kids" don't have the legal authority to "take away the keys" as some here suggest. Like it or not--theft is a crime! If I literally strong arm my parent and STEAL his keys, I can go to prison for many years! Same with tampering with a car to disable it--also a crime!
Then all we have is a normally law abiding adult in prison, minor children in the foster care system (because their parent is now locked up) and the elderly person still out and about driving.

Oh stop. No one is going to jail for taking their demented parents keys away. Seriously. Most people don't go to jail for taking a car nefariously. It's just not that high a priority crime. If your parent shouldn't be driving, then do whatever you need to do to keep them from doing it, even if it means hiding the keys or disabling the battery.

x10000


Selfish breeds selfish....

We took the keys after our dear father shared his funny stories (to him only) that he drives up the wrong side of the ramp too often these days. My older sister and her DH arrived at my parent's house that evening, drove the car away and took all the keys. We then as a family rallied around and created a schedule where our parents had access to one of us at all times and since we lived relatively close, we could grant their little wishes on a whim until they got past that phase. Eventually it sorted itself out to two days a week shared by six siblings and grandchildren as they got older. We took care of them as they took care of us, as it should be.

It's fortunate your family had six siblings and grandchildren that lived close enough to do that. Many elderly don't.

👏🏽Yes, this! And many communities lack the resources to fill in the gaps for elderly people without access to the level of support that, in the PP’s family is shared by at least 8 people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is tragic and horrible. Why would it be funny?

95 year old MIL thought it was the big bamboozle to go into the DMV, fail the vision test 3 times, and have the clerk grant her her driver's license, anyway. Legally blind and driving. Wonderful.

Why you know she is going to hurt someone you must take away the keys every adult child is responsible for taking the keys from a relative who is unable to drive

How do you propose the adult child do that from someone who refuses? Physically assaulting someone until they are unable to resist and then stealing their possessions is a crime.

You follow the appropriate process in your state. In Maryland, you submit a letter to the MVA (it can be anonymous) and report your concerns and ask them to evaluate the driver. The person’s physician can also contact the MVA.

That might take away their license, it doesn't take away their keys. Plenty of people drive without a license.

OK, then when they get caught willfully driving without a valid license, toss them in jail. No more “oh, poor baby.”

You might want to think about this policy just a little bit.

I am the pp they were responding to, that said "That might take away their license..."
Why? Why should people who drive without a valid license not face jail time? As far as I'm concerned, they should be jailed for the rest of their lives-that will stop them from driving without a license again!

Our jails will be full of minorities that drove with out licenses.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/no-drivers-license-no-job/486653/

And Congressman Cawthorn.

If you are trying to make an argument against that proposed policy, you aren't doing a very good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who causes most of the traffic fatalities in the US - men under 25, but yeah Pick on the old people.

This point has been brought up several times but no one seems to want to comment on it. If people want to advocate for testing older people every year then they should support doing the same for MALES of certain age groups, as they have the highest fatality rates.

Males under the age of 25 were literally just tested/evaluated within the last decade.

Drivers over the age of 75 haven't been evaluated in 50 years!

Holy crap, when you put it that way, it really is terrifying that they are still on the road.

PP you quoted here. It really is! And actually, I did the math wrong--for most of them it's 60 years (assuming they got their license at 16.)

I am 46--I haven't had to take any type of test or evaluation since I was 16--30 years ago! I moved from the state I got my license (CA) to VA almost 16 years ago. To get my VA license, I just had to submit some paper work, pay a fee, and have my photo taken. I didn't have to take a test or have my driving evaluated--even though some traffic laws are different in CA compared to VA. That's actually not a good thing.

If your theory is correct, males under 25 should be the safest on the road having been most recently tested. I doubt that's true.

Males under 25 are some of the most skilled drivers but they take unnecessary risks that result in higher numbers of crashes. Someone who hits the gas instead of the brake is a completely unqualified driver who lacks even the most basic skills of driving.

+1

It's not a common occurrence, but it is a possibility not just for seniors. What you're really pointing out is that driving is pretty unsafe.

If cars weren't so big / high powered it would be less of a risk. Imagine what a 4 cylinder lower/smaller car would have resulted in?

You know smaller engine vehicles still weigh roughly a ton, right?

Did you ever take a basic physics course in your life? Never mind, we know the answer.

Holy crap. Talk about denial.

A lot more than you apparently. Getting hot by a smaller/lower car at lower speeds is far better than getting hit by a bigger/taller car at high speeds. It doesn't mean that the smaller would be fun, but it would do a lot less damage.

Not only is this supported by theoretical physics calculations (momentum, energy, etc.), but also empirical data about the impact of size, height, and speed on damage to people.

But please, tell me more about denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

I don't see anyone here thinking that. But adult "kids" don't have the legal authority to "take away the keys" as some here suggest. Like it or not--theft is a crime! If I literally strong arm my parent and STEAL his keys, I can go to prison for many years! Same with tampering with a car to disable it--also a crime!
Then all we have is a normally law abiding adult in prison, minor children in the foster care system (because their parent is now locked up) and the elderly person still out and about driving.

Oh stop. No one is going to jail for taking their demented parents keys away. Seriously. Most people don't go to jail for taking a car nefariously. It's just not that high a priority crime. If your parent shouldn't be driving, then do whatever you need to do to keep them from doing it, even if it means hiding the keys or disabling the battery.

You're assuming the demented parents just leave the keys out where the adult child can take them. If the demented parent won't give them up and the adult child has to literally beat the parent unconscious to get ahold of them, I guarantee you the adult child will face charges.

Maybe the adult child should face charges for allowing their impaired parent to drive.

"Allowing them?" Adult children have no power unless the adult has been declared mentally incompetent and the adult child has been given legally custody. Would you like the US to be a place where it is a fairly quick and simple process for adults to be declared mentally incompetent and lose all rights, just on someone else's say so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think that their elderly parents driving (NOT a right, but a privilege, at that) takes any sort of precedent over innocent people living; and avoiding the wrath of a car driven by someone who shouldn't even be driving jumping a curb and ending it right there.

I don't see anyone here thinking that. But adult "kids" don't have the legal authority to "take away the keys" as some here suggest. Like it or not--theft is a crime! If I literally strong arm my parent and STEAL his keys, I can go to prison for many years! Same with tampering with a car to disable it--also a crime!
Then all we have is a normally law abiding adult in prison, minor children in the foster care system (because their parent is now locked up) and the elderly person still out and about driving.

Oh stop. No one is going to jail for taking their demented parents keys away. Seriously. Most people don't go to jail for taking a car nefariously. It's just not that high a priority crime. If your parent shouldn't be driving, then do whatever you need to do to keep them from doing it, even if it means hiding the keys or disabling the battery.

You're assuming the demented parents just leave the keys out where the adult child can take them. If the demented parent won't give them up and the adult child has to literally beat the parent unconscious to get ahold of them, I guarantee you the adult child will face charges.

Maybe the adult child should face charges for allowing their impaired parent to drive.

"Allowing them?" Adult children have no power unless the adult has been declared mentally incompetent and the adult child has been given legally custody. Would you like the US to be a place where it is a fairly quick and simple process for adults to be declared mentally incompetent and lose all rights, just on someone else's say so?

This, exactly.

It's also not a binary thing. People's risk factors while driving tend to change slowly and our perspectives on them are biased. There are, of course, extremes where we take action. But it's a systemic issue that needs systemic solutions, not just harping on individuals. Unless you don't actually care about the problem and just like to feel morally superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This recently happened in Florida. Elderly woman, man killed dining outside at restaurant. Woman not charged, because it was an "accident."

Honestly I think after 65, everyone needs to be retested every 5 years.

Hell, I wouldn't mind everyone being tested every 5 years, because lord knows there are so many people who never should have received licenses in the first place

AARP now has the most well funded lobbying arm in DC. The testing you suggest will never happen.

Are you under the impression that driver's licenses are regulated at the national level?

Are you under the impression that state legislatures aren’t subject to lobbying?

[Anonymous]

Elderly aren't the problem. If they were the insurance rates would reflect that and they don't. A bunch of you just want to pick on old people. It is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elderly aren't the problem. If they were the insurance rates would reflect that and they don't. A bunch of you just want to pick on old people. It is disgusting.

No, it's because then insurance companies will be accused of age discrimination, and as we've seen with covid, you can't bring up older age risks or you're accused of hating "the most vulnerable."

As someone who's a pedestrian 80% of the time, elderly drivers are truly the most dangerous. Yes there are dangerous drivers in all age groups, but elderly drivers simply do not have the sense of perception or reaction time that another may have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elderly aren't the problem. If they were the insurance rates would reflect that and they don't. A bunch of you just want to pick on old people. It is disgusting.

No, it's because then insurance companies will be accused of age discrimination, and as we've seen with covid, you can't bring up older age risks or you're accused of hating "the most vulnerable."

As someone who's a pedestrian 80% of the time, elderly drivers are truly the most dangerous. Yes there are dangerous drivers in all age groups, but elderly drivers simply do not have the sense of perception or reaction time that another may have.

They already age discriminate.

[Anonymous]

I am ready to write a letter to the MVA reporting that males aged 16-25 should not be allowed licenses. I am shocked that some of you allow your children in a car driven by boys and men in that age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This recently happened in Florida. Elderly woman, man killed dining outside at restaurant. Woman not charged, because it was an "accident."

Honestly I think after 65, everyone needs to be retested every 5 years.

Hell, I wouldn't mind everyone being tested every 5 years, because lord knows there are so many people who never should have received licenses in the first place

Every 1-2 years. And there should be a quick and legitimate process for family members or those in the know to put in reports for those who shouldn’t be driving, and they could be evaluated independently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elderly aren't the problem. If they were the insurance rates would reflect that and they don't. A bunch of you just want to pick on old people. It is disgusting.

No, it's because then insurance companies will be accused of age discrimination, and as we've seen with covid, you can't bring up older age risks or you're accused of hating "the most vulnerable."

As someone who's a pedestrian 80% of the time, elderly drivers are truly the most dangerous. Yes there are dangerous drivers in all age groups, but elderly drivers simply do not have the sense of perception or reaction time that another may have.

Yeah - you really don’t know anything about this.

[Anonymous]

No updates from MPD yet?